Voter Suppression is Simply Un-American. Grow up GOP.

So, taking away freebies?

 

Yes, from your point of view. That was the point expressed in your post, which I, and others here, disagree on having the validity you believe it has.

The problem I have with it (your belief, as stated in your post) is that it is a corruption of a respected proverb.

Yes, teaching someone to fish is better in the long run for the person. But, by adhering to such a strict interpretation of the proverb, it allows you to ignore the fact that you have no true interest in the person's well-being.

Worse, it seeks to convince people that anyone who receives assistance of any kind is a leech on society, or more to the point, you in particular, whereas the original intent was something else entirely.

Originally, the proverb was a lesson on the value of helping someone learn how to fish. In the modern, Republican handbook, it's about ignoring the person altogether, with no assistance permissible what-so-ever.

The modern version lacks the caring nature, the heart, of the original. It allows self-centered, selfish people to "wash their hands" of the less fortunate by ignoring their plight.

 

Your basic flawed assumption and that of your party is that people only vote against the both of you because they get, as you put it, "free stuff". If that is really your belief, I see no reason to correct you. It's sort of like facing your enemies across the battlefield and just before your troops are about to let fly a torrent of flaming arrows, your enemy decides to dump gasoline over their own heads to prove their toughness. OK, that works for us. Lunch anybody?

 

I guess it goes back to that proactive/reactive thing...
The left wants to throw money at the problem (with selfish & suspect motives in many cases) while the right looks to fix the problem & prevent it from happening again.

 

Breaking the cycle is in the best interest of everyone, perpetuating it only serves the dimocRAT party, but you knew that didn't you?

 

Well to teach someone to fish, you have to employ a instructor show then the right kit and method to use and possibly supply the kit it if they can not afford it. (after all what is the point if they dont then have the means to fish)
Now my question is who is going to pay for that?

 

One also has to assume they have fishable waters that they can actually safely eat any fish they catch from.

 

I don't think it's even necessary to teach the man to fish. If he gets hungry, he'll find a way to catch a fish.

 

....or they can just keep making excuses...

 

Not making any excuses here simply asking who pays to train and possibly equip the person to fish

 

What if that man was raised in a desert and never had the opportunity to learn to fish? You foolishly assume equal opportunity.

 

And you foolishly assume everyone is an idiot - of course except you ruling party.

 

Not everyone but you do tend to tip the scales in that direction.

 

My interpretation of the proverb is about "hand's on" teaching, that is, guiding someone to self-reliance, teaching them, one-on-one if necessary, the skills they need to survive, to thrive, providing assistance as needed until that person is able to survive and thrive on their own.

Your version says "Learn on your own," and nothing else.

Since your party has been so successful over the years at limiting the amount of assistance available, and limiting who can receive such assistance, you win. Congratulations on your victory.

 

I am fine with giving a fish to someone who needs a fish. I just wish we would pay for the fish first.

 

Lowered taxes over the years prevents that possibility. You have people signing a pledge to never raise taxes, what do you think is going to happen? Get taxes to zero and what's next? I'd say negative taxes, but there's none collected, so that's impossible.

Low taxes means reduced benefits. You like that? Congrats, you've won. But you work in a field that requires benefits to function. What do you think is going to happen when there's no money, and no desire to provide benefits? You're job is toast, and so are the people you help.

 

I agree. If we want to spend on this stuff, then tax appropriately to pay for it. You are talking to the person who would love to see taxes tied directly to spending. The real problem is that it is easy to agree with taxing someone else but rare to see people who are willing to be taxed more themselves.

 

I'm glad you agree, albeit not entirely in the same way. I know your work is with people who are most affected by this madness, and sometimes I have a hard time figuring out where you stand on it.

IMO, it's a systematic problem dating back decades. The pressure to lower taxes, and NEVER raise them, coupled with an increasing desire to lower benefits to vets, seniors, and the poor, has the results one would expect...misery and suffering.

We're better than that. We can help those groups if we have the will, but not with all this BS about people being leeches on the system. Sure, there are some leeches...but the collateral damage is felt most by those who legitimately need the assistance. I've watched too much suffering and death as a direct result of Republican policies.

Sorry if I offended you with anything I've said in the past, but I know you get where I'm coming from, you see it too.

 

I really don't take offense to much here. Probably because I do not self identify with either of the 2 partys discussed. But, as much as I see a need for 'safety nets' and infrastructure and a military and other things, I firmly believe that we are headed to a point where all of that will be impossible whether we want it or not if we do not start taking responsibility for paying for what we want to do.

I am willing to have more taxes or less taxes or more spending or less spending. Whatever is the will of the people who vote. But, eventually, people are going to have to put on their big boy pants and realize we can't have all spending and just tax 'the other guy'. Sustainability is about all I really preach.

 

Don't expect any real answer to that question.

You may get some drivel. It's like drizzle but different.

Both rain down though.